Ag Policy Blog

Farm organizations and some large conservation groups are pushing back against an amendment proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to tighten the "actively engaged" eligibility for farm programs in the budget reconciliation bill.

After marathon speeches, the Senate has begun voting on amendments to the reconciliation bill, with a final vote expected late Monday or early Tuesday.

Prospects for final passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) are still uncertain, but if it does pass it will then go to the House, which would try to finish it before Friday, the date President Trump says he wants the bill -- although Trump has softened his insistence on the July 4 deadline.

Grassley's amendment would tighten the definition for actively engaged on a farm by requiring 25% of the total management hours on an operation, or 500 hours annually. Grassley's staff indicated Monday that the senator does intend to push for a vote on that amendment.

Both the House and Senate versions of the OBBBA would increase commodity program payment limits from $125,000 to $155,000 for individuals and then the payment limit would increase based on an inflation index. The bill also removes income caps for farmers or entities that draw 75% or more of their income from agriculture or forestry.

Nearly 50 farm groups representing most major commodities and the American Farm Bureau Federation and the International Fresh Produce Association oppose the amendment. Beyond farm groups, several major conservation groups also opposed Grassley's amendment.

In a letter first reported by Politico, groups wrote a letter dated Sunday to Senate leaders raising their concerns with Grassley's proposal. "The Grassley amendment eliminates all the positive improvements made in the OBBBA regarding payment limits and the expansion of access to disaster assistance and conservation programs for producers with 75% or more of their average gross income derived from farming, ranching, or forestry."

"In addition, the amendment imposes new restrictions on producers by mandating one payment limit per farming operation and substantially changing the definition of what it means for a producer to be actively engaged in farming," the groups said.

The Democratic-leaning National Farmers Union said in a news release that it supports the Grassley amendment but has mixed views on the overall bill.

"We support Senator Grassley's amendment to close those loopholes and better target support to family farmers and ranchers. These improvements are essential to restore fairness," NFU President Rob Larew said.

Larew added, "Family farmers and ranchers still need a comprehensive, five-year farm bill that reflects the full breadth of agriculture--from producers to consumers--and using reconciliation to move a partial package is a missed opportunity.

"There are some meaningful provisions in this bill. It strengthens the farm safety net, invests in biofuels and conservation, and extends key tax incentives. But these gains are paired with harmful tradeoffs -- most notably, cuts to SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and Medicaid and new, broader loopholes in farm program payment limits," Larew said.

"Farm policy should unite us. We urge lawmakers to redouble their efforts to deliver a farm bill that works for everyone."

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition also endorsed the Grassley amendment.

Mike Lavender, NSAC policy director said in an email, "Bipartisan consensus has long maintained that farm payments should be targeted to working farmers who need them, not non-farm investors, absent landholders, or recipients who act as pass-throughs."

"Sen. Grassley's amendment closes loopholes that perpetuate waste, fraud, and abuse; under current law, limitless individuals on any farm can receive annual commodity program payments up to $125,000, or double that limit for recipients with a spouse, including absent investors and distant family members who never step foot on the farm," Lavender said.

"This amendment applies reasonable work requirements as a condition of eligibility for taxpayer-funded farm program payments and limits the number of payments to one payment per farm. This simple solution is projected to save $5 billion. The amendment does not impact in any way the Adjusted Gross Income threshold that affects eligibility for conservation and disaster programs. It does apply to commodity programs, such as the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC), into which the OBBB injects an additional $67 billion.

"This amendment is key to targeting farm support to hard-working family farmers -- not absent investors and corporate board members -- while stewarding responsible taxpayer spending."

NSAC said Grassley's amendment in the reconciliation bill is "virtually identical" to the Grassley amendment that was approved in June 2018 when the Senate advanced the bipartisan 2018 farm bill.

"A similar 'actively engaged' provision also passed in the House of Representatives that year," NSAC said. "Despite this overwhelming bipartisan, bicameral support, the provision was stripped in conference, contrary to the rules."

The full letter can be viewed here: https://www.politico.com/…

Also see, "Amid Fireworks, Senators Voting on Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton contributed to this report.

Jerry Hagstrom can be reached at jhagstrom@nationaljournal.com

Follow him on social platform X @hagstromreport

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.